| Title | Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2009 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 158 –160 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Dillon, John |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This is a most welcome book, by a scholar who has had much to do with Simplicius over the last decade or so, as part of the great Ancient Commentators on Aristotle project, initiated by Richard Sorabji (indeed it is to Sorabji that the book is dedicated). The fruits of this experience are evidenced on more or less every page. As B. remarks, it has not been customary hitherto to focus on the personality or methods of Simplicius himself, as opposed to his value as a source for previous figures, both commentators and original authors, such as the Presocratics—such would have been the attitude of the great Hermann Diels, for example, who edited the Physics Commentary, as well as making so much use of him for his Fragmente der Vorsokratiker and Doxographi Graeci. But undoubtedly, Simplicius merits some attention for himself. The book consists of six chapters, with an introduction and an epilogue. The introduction sets out the parameters of the problem: what should one expect in the way of philosophical attitudes from a late antique Platonist such as Simplicius, and how B. himself proposes to proceed in evaluating him. He emphasises that there are many ways in which this is something of a "work in progress," but he certainly provides enough material to give us a good idea of what Simplicius is up to. Above all, learned though he is, and copiously though he quotes his predecessors, we should not expect Simplicius to be in any anachronistic way an "objective" scholar. He is a Platonist, and his purpose is to assimilate Aristotle (and indeed the Presocratic philosophers) into the Platonist system. Ch. 1, ‘The Scholar and his Books’, introduces us to what is known of Simplicius’ life and education (with Ammonius in Alexandria and Damascius in Athens, in the early decades of the sixth century) and addresses the major problem of the location and circumstances in which he composed his vast commentaries—necessarily after the official closing of the Academy in 529, and the return of the philosophers, of whom he was one, from Persia in 531. The Harran hypothesis of Tardieu runs into the great problem of the availability of source materials in such a relatively outlying place, and B. is inclined to reject it. The alternative is a return to Athens, or possibly Alexandria, where at least there were good libraries. For one salient aspect of Simplicius’ work is his extraordinary range of reading, and his willingness to provide us with verbatim quotations from this, extending from Presocratics such as Parmenides, Melissus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, through immediate followers of Aristotle, such as Theophrastus and Eudemus, and then the great second-century A.D. Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias, down to his Neoplatonic predecessors Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus, and his own teacher Damascius. B. devotes separate chapters to each of these categories of predecessor. Ch. 2, ‘Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy? Origins of Ancient Wisdom’, looks at his use of Parmenides, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras in particular, and makes various suggestions about his overall purposes in this. It is certainly notable that Simplicius favours verbatim quotation even of prose authors—in contrast, for example, to such a figure as Proclus, who prefers to paraphrase prose authors at least—but I think that I would rest content with Simplicius’ own explanation (and apologies for over-quotation!), that he was concerned to preserve as much as he could of sources that were becoming increasingly rare in his day. It does not mean that he is not prepared to distort their meaning in a Neoplatonic direction. Ch. 3, ‘Towards a Canon: The Early Peripatetics’, turns to a study of Theophrastus and Eudemus, and in particular their comments on, and adaptations of, Aristotle’s Physics. It is here, I fear, that one begins to realise that this is the sort of book that is best appreciated if one has the original works it is discussing at one’s elbow, as one generally does not—in this case, chiefly Simplicius’ vast Commentary on the Physics. However, B. undoubtedly gives a good account of how Simplicius uses Theophrastus, and particularly Eudemus, whom he actually refers to far more (132 references as against 37!), for the clarification of Aristotle’s doctrine. Ch. 4, ‘Ghost in the Machine? The Role of Alexander of Aphrodisias’, deals with Alexander, who is indeed Simplicius’ chief authority—quoted or mentioned in all fully 1200 times, of which around 700 are in the Physics Commentary. Alexander is, for Simplicius, simply "the commentator," and is of basic importance to him. After giving a useful account of Alexander's own exegetical achievements, B. tries to draw up something of a typology of ways in which he is used by Simplicius (4.3): first, he can be used as simply a helpful source for understanding Aristotle; secondly, he can be quoted and criticised, on a matter of interpretation or doctrine; thirdly, he can be quoted in connection with a variant in the manuscript tradition. Of all these, he gives examples, emphasising how central Alexander is to the whole commentary tradition. Ch. 5, ‘Platonist Commentators: Sources and Inspiration’, takes us through the later Platonist tradition of commentary, with a glance at the Middle Platonists, but focusing chiefly on Porphyry and Iamblichus, and the establishing of the "harmonising" interpretation of Aristotle of which Simplicius is the heir. The use of these Platonist predecessors is particularly notable in the case of the Categories Commentary, but it affects the others as well. Lastly, in Ch. 6, ‘Polemic and Exegesis in Simplicius: Defending Pagan Theology’, he deals with Simplicius’ fierce controversy with his Christian contemporary John Philoponus, as well as with his more civil criticisms of Alexander. The bitterness of his assaults on Philoponus does, as B. argues, bring home to us how far Simplicius is a heroic and tragic figure, trying to preserve and synthesise the whole of the Hellenic (I do wish we could give up the term "pagan"!) philosophical tradition in face of the ever more insistent Christian challenge, and composing his vast commentaries for a now largely imaginary coterie of students. An Epilogue resumes all these findings, and B. appends some useful appendices, including one listing the probable contents of Simplicius’ library, which certainly brings it home to us that these great works of his could not have been composed while wandering about the Syrian desert on the back of a camel. He really must have been back in Athens, with some access to the library of the Platonic School. At any rate, with this study, B. at last gives Simplicius something of his due as a scholar as well as a commentator. [the entire review p. 158-160] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/p1cPjdejj6J9LSt |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"601","_score":null,"_source":{"id":601,"authors_free":[{"id":852,"entry_id":601,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"This is a most welcome book, by a scholar who has had much to do with Simplicius over the last decade or so, as part of the great Ancient Commentators on Aristotle project, initiated by Richard Sorabji (indeed it is to Sorabji that the book is dedicated). The fruits of this experience are evidenced on more or less every page. As B. remarks, it has not been customary hitherto to focus on the personality or methods of Simplicius himself, as opposed to his value as a source for previous figures, both commentators and original authors, such as the Presocratics\u2014such would have been the attitude of the great Hermann Diels, for example, who edited the Physics Commentary, as well as making so much use of him for his Fragmente der Vorsokratiker and Doxographi Graeci. But undoubtedly, Simplicius merits some attention for himself.\r\n\r\nThe book consists of six chapters, with an introduction and an epilogue. The introduction sets out the parameters of the problem: what should one expect in the way of philosophical attitudes from a late antique Platonist such as Simplicius, and how B. himself proposes to proceed in evaluating him. He emphasises that there are many ways in which this is something of a \"work in progress,\" but he certainly provides enough material to give us a good idea of what Simplicius is up to. Above all, learned though he is, and copiously though he quotes his predecessors, we should not expect Simplicius to be in any anachronistic way an \"objective\" scholar. He is a Platonist, and his purpose is to assimilate Aristotle (and indeed the Presocratic philosophers) into the Platonist system.\r\n\r\nCh. 1, \u2018The Scholar and his Books\u2019, introduces us to what is known of Simplicius\u2019 life and education (with Ammonius in Alexandria and Damascius in Athens, in the early decades of the sixth century) and addresses the major problem of the location and circumstances in which he composed his vast commentaries\u2014necessarily after the official closing of the Academy in 529, and the return of the philosophers, of whom he was one, from Persia in 531. The Harran hypothesis of Tardieu runs into the great problem of the availability of source materials in such a relatively outlying place, and B. is inclined to reject it. The alternative is a return to Athens, or possibly Alexandria, where at least there were good libraries.\r\n\r\nFor one salient aspect of Simplicius\u2019 work is his extraordinary range of reading, and his willingness to provide us with verbatim quotations from this, extending from Presocratics such as Parmenides, Melissus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, through immediate followers of Aristotle, such as Theophrastus and Eudemus, and then the great second-century A.D. Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias, down to his Neoplatonic predecessors Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus, and his own teacher Damascius. B. devotes separate chapters to each of these categories of predecessor.\r\n\r\nCh. 2, \u2018Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy? Origins of Ancient Wisdom\u2019, looks at his use of Parmenides, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras in particular, and makes various suggestions about his overall purposes in this. It is certainly notable that Simplicius favours verbatim quotation even of prose authors\u2014in contrast, for example, to such a figure as Proclus, who prefers to paraphrase prose authors at least\u2014but I think that I would rest content with Simplicius\u2019 own explanation (and apologies for over-quotation!), that he was concerned to preserve as much as he could of sources that were becoming increasingly rare in his day. It does not mean that he is not prepared to distort their meaning in a Neoplatonic direction.\r\n\r\nCh. 3, \u2018Towards a Canon: The Early Peripatetics\u2019, turns to a study of Theophrastus and Eudemus, and in particular their comments on, and adaptations of, Aristotle\u2019s Physics. It is here, I fear, that one begins to realise that this is the sort of book that is best appreciated if one has the original works it is discussing at one\u2019s elbow, as one generally does not\u2014in this case, chiefly Simplicius\u2019 vast Commentary on the Physics. However, B. undoubtedly gives a good account of how Simplicius uses Theophrastus, and particularly Eudemus, whom he actually refers to far more (132 references as against 37!), for the clarification of Aristotle\u2019s doctrine.\r\n\r\nCh. 4, \u2018Ghost in the Machine? The Role of Alexander of Aphrodisias\u2019, deals with Alexander, who is indeed Simplicius\u2019 chief authority\u2014quoted or mentioned in all fully 1200 times, of which around 700 are in the Physics Commentary. Alexander is, for Simplicius, simply \"the commentator,\" and is of basic importance to him. After giving a useful account of Alexander's own exegetical achievements, B. tries to draw up something of a typology of ways in which he is used by Simplicius (4.3): first, he can be used as simply a helpful source for understanding Aristotle; secondly, he can be quoted and criticised, on a matter of interpretation or doctrine; thirdly, he can be quoted in connection with a variant in the manuscript tradition. Of all these, he gives examples, emphasising how central Alexander is to the whole commentary tradition.\r\n\r\nCh. 5, \u2018Platonist Commentators: Sources and Inspiration\u2019, takes us through the later Platonist tradition of commentary, with a glance at the Middle Platonists, but focusing chiefly on Porphyry and Iamblichus, and the establishing of the \"harmonising\" interpretation of Aristotle of which Simplicius is the heir. The use of these Platonist predecessors is particularly notable in the case of the Categories Commentary, but it affects the others as well.\r\n\r\nLastly, in Ch. 6, \u2018Polemic and Exegesis in Simplicius: Defending Pagan Theology\u2019, he deals with Simplicius\u2019 fierce controversy with his Christian contemporary John Philoponus, as well as with his more civil criticisms of Alexander. The bitterness of his assaults on Philoponus does, as B. argues, bring home to us how far Simplicius is a heroic and tragic figure, trying to preserve and synthesise the whole of the Hellenic (I do wish we could give up the term \"pagan\"!) philosophical tradition in face of the ever more insistent Christian challenge, and composing his vast commentaries for a now largely imaginary coterie of students.\r\n\r\nAn Epilogue resumes all these findings, and B. appends some useful appendices, including one listing the probable contents of Simplicius\u2019 library, which certainly brings it home to us that these great works of his could not have been composed while wandering about the Syrian desert on the back of a camel. He really must have been back in Athens, with some access to the library of the Platonic School.\r\n\r\nAt any rate, with this study, B. at last gives Simplicius something of his due as a scholar as well as a commentator. [the entire review p. 158-160]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/p1cPjdejj6J9LSt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":601,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"3","issue":"2","pages":"158 \u2013160"}},"sort":[2009]}
| Title | Iamblichus’ Νοερὰ Θεωρία of Aristotle’s Categories |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1997 |
| Journal | Syllecta Classica |
| Volume | 8 |
| Pages | 65-77 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Dillon, John |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This text discusses Iamblichus' commentary on Porphyry's large commentary on Aristotle's Categories. Porphyry is credited with the setting out and responses to all the aporiai that were concocted by critics of the Categories in the Middle Platonic period, as well as with references to Stoic doctrines in the commentary. Iamblichus added certain criticisms, modifications of Porphyry, relevant passages of Archytas, and some "higher criticism" or intellectual interpretation of nearly all sections of the work. Iamblichus' contribution was to apply his techniques of allegorical exegesis to Aristotle's Categories, where he was able to apply much the same method as he did with Plato's dialogues. Iamblichus' method of commentary is discussed in detail, including his definition of the skopos, or essential subject matter, of the treatise, which concerned all three possible subject matters for the Categories: words, things, and concepts. [introduction/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Oti0shwXiKiyZ4B |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1147","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1147,"authors_free":[{"id":1722,"entry_id":1147,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Iamblichus\u2019 \u039d\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u0398\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 of Aristotle\u2019s Categories","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus\u2019 \u039d\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u0398\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 of Aristotle\u2019s Categories"},"abstract":"This text discusses Iamblichus' commentary on Porphyry's large commentary on Aristotle's Categories. Porphyry is credited with the setting out and responses to all the aporiai that were concocted by critics of the Categories in the Middle Platonic period, as well as with references to Stoic doctrines in the commentary. Iamblichus added certain criticisms, modifications of Porphyry, relevant passages of Archytas, and some \"higher criticism\" or intellectual interpretation of nearly all sections of the work. Iamblichus' contribution was to apply his techniques of allegorical exegesis to Aristotle's Categories, where he was able to apply much the same method as he did with Plato's dialogues. Iamblichus' method of commentary is discussed in detail, including his definition of the skopos, or essential subject matter, of the treatise, which concerned all three possible subject matters for the Categories: words, things, and concepts. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Oti0shwXiKiyZ4B","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1147,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Syllecta Classica","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"65-77"}},"sort":[1997]}
| Title | Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1990 |
| Journal | Journal of Hellenic Studies |
| Volume | 110 |
| Pages | 244–245 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Dillon, John |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Simplicius is a man who might seem destined forever to be used simply as a source for other thinkers, without being given much credit for thinking himself. After all, his surviving works are overtly commentaries on one work or another (overwhelmingly of Aristotle)—though, in fact, small bits of more original work are embedded in these, such as the Corollaries on Space and Time in the Physics commentary. He is also a man of exemplary modesty about his own contributions, always making clear his debts to previous authorities, quoting his sources to an extent unusual in Neoplatonist circles (or indeed in the ancient world in general). It was therefore a happy idea of Mme. Hadot to call together a conference of distinguished Neoplatonists to honor Simplicius and to produce this impressive volume as a result. The work is divided into four (unequal) parts: A biographical introduction A series of essays on doctrinal and methodological questions A shorter section on textual problems A pair of essays on Simplicius' Nachleben All are of interest and importance. First, we have an essay by Ilsetraut Hadot herself (depending in one important respect on the essay of Michel Tardieu, which follows it) on the chronology of Simplicius' life and works. Tardieu, by a fine piece of detective work (Simplicius et les calendriers de Harran), argues with at least great probability that when Simplicius returned with the other philosophers from Persia in 532, it was not to Athens or any other major center but rather to the town of Harran (Carrhae) in Osrhoene. There, a tradition of non-conformist Christianity was tolerant of philosophy, and it is likely where he composed most, if not all, of his commentaries. Certain remarks Simplicius makes in In Phys. 874.23 ff., about the four different calendars "we" use, seem to require his presence at the only known place where four calendars were simultaneously in use, as we know from later Arab sources. The central part of the collection comprises six essays on aspects of doctrine: Two by Philippe Hoffmann (Categories et langage selon Simplicius: on the purpose (skopos) of Aristotle's Categories and an analysis of Simplicius’ invective against John Philoponus) One by Henry Blumenthal on the doctrine of the De Anima commentary of Simplicius (if it is indeed by Simplicius) One by Concetta Luna on Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary One by Richard Sorabji on Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension One by Nestor-Luis Cordero on Simplicius et l'école éléate Hoffmann's studies frame this central portion of the work. His first examines Simplicius' account of the skopos of Aristotle's Categories, showing how Simplicius, following Porphyry, views the Categories as addressing "utterances" (phonai), "things" (pragmata, onta), "concepts" (noemata), or all of these. Simplicius interprets the study of language, particularly its primary constituents, as a preparation for the soul’s ascent to the noetic world—a higher interpretation inherited from Iamblichus. In his second study, Hoffmann examines Simplicius' strategies of polemic and invective against Philoponus, particularly in the De Caelo, and Simplicius' view of the higher purpose of studying celestial matters. For Simplicius, even prosaic texts like the Categories could become an elevating and prayerful experience. Sorabji, in an elegant contribution, shows how Simplicius solves a problem bequeathed by Aristotle by identifying prime matter with extension, which Aristotle did not do. Cordero challenges the idea of an Eleatic "school" while listing Simplicius’ quotations of Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus. Blumenthal discusses Simplicius’ doctrine of the soul, though his uncertainty about the authorship of the De Anima commentary (potentially by Priscian) limits the analysis. Luna traces Iamblichean roots in Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary. The final sections include discussions of the manuscript tradition of Simplicius, with contributions by Ilsetraut Hadot, Leonardo Taran, and Dieter Harlfinger. Taran critiques Diels’ edition of Simplicius' Physics commentary, showing its deficiencies due to reliance on unreliable collations and limited understanding of Neoplatonic doctrine. Harlfinger analyzes contamination in the manuscript tradition of the commentary on Books I-IV. The collection concludes with two papers on Simplicius’ influence in the medieval West, one by Fernand Boissier on Latin translations and the influence of the In De Caelo commentary and another by Pierre Hadot on the survival of the Manuel d'Épictète commentary in the 15th to 17th centuries. Overall, this collection has given Simplicius much of his due as a major commentator and preserver of earlier Greek philosophy. While only three papers—those by Blumenthal, Luna, and Sorabji—discuss any distinctive doctrines of Simplicius, this is perhaps reasonable given that he does not claim originality. Most of what seems distinctive likely goes back to Iamblichus or Syrianus/Proclus. Yet, it might one day be possible to produce a focused volume on his doctrinal innovations. [the entire text] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hje0CYeAY915LhU |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"708","_score":null,"_source":{"id":708,"authors_free":[{"id":1056,"entry_id":708,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie","main_title":{"title":"Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie"},"abstract":"Simplicius is a man who might seem destined forever to be used simply as a source for other thinkers, without being given much credit for thinking himself. After all, his surviving works are overtly commentaries on one work or another (overwhelmingly of Aristotle)\u2014though, in fact, small bits of more original work are embedded in these, such as the Corollaries on Space and Time in the Physics commentary. He is also a man of exemplary modesty about his own contributions, always making clear his debts to previous authorities, quoting his sources to an extent unusual in Neoplatonist circles (or indeed in the ancient world in general).\r\n\r\nIt was therefore a happy idea of Mme. Hadot to call together a conference of distinguished Neoplatonists to honor Simplicius and to produce this impressive volume as a result. The work is divided into four (unequal) parts:\r\n\r\n A biographical introduction\r\n A series of essays on doctrinal and methodological questions\r\n A shorter section on textual problems\r\n A pair of essays on Simplicius' Nachleben\r\n\r\nAll are of interest and importance.\r\n\r\nFirst, we have an essay by Ilsetraut Hadot herself (depending in one important respect on the essay of Michel Tardieu, which follows it) on the chronology of Simplicius' life and works. Tardieu, by a fine piece of detective work (Simplicius et les calendriers de Harran), argues with at least great probability that when Simplicius returned with the other philosophers from Persia in 532, it was not to Athens or any other major center but rather to the town of Harran (Carrhae) in Osrhoene. There, a tradition of non-conformist Christianity was tolerant of philosophy, and it is likely where he composed most, if not all, of his commentaries. Certain remarks Simplicius makes in In Phys. 874.23 ff., about the four different calendars \"we\" use, seem to require his presence at the only known place where four calendars were simultaneously in use, as we know from later Arab sources.\r\n\r\nThe central part of the collection comprises six essays on aspects of doctrine:\r\n\r\n Two by Philippe Hoffmann (Categories et langage selon Simplicius: on the purpose (skopos) of Aristotle's Categories and an analysis of Simplicius\u2019 invective against John Philoponus)\r\n One by Henry Blumenthal on the doctrine of the De Anima commentary of Simplicius (if it is indeed by Simplicius)\r\n One by Concetta Luna on Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary\r\n One by Richard Sorabji on Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension\r\n One by Nestor-Luis Cordero on Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole \u00e9l\u00e9ate\r\n\r\nHoffmann's studies frame this central portion of the work. His first examines Simplicius' account of the skopos of Aristotle's Categories, showing how Simplicius, following Porphyry, views the Categories as addressing \"utterances\" (phonai), \"things\" (pragmata, onta), \"concepts\" (noemata), or all of these. Simplicius interprets the study of language, particularly its primary constituents, as a preparation for the soul\u2019s ascent to the noetic world\u2014a higher interpretation inherited from Iamblichus. In his second study, Hoffmann examines Simplicius' strategies of polemic and invective against Philoponus, particularly in the De Caelo, and Simplicius' view of the higher purpose of studying celestial matters. For Simplicius, even prosaic texts like the Categories could become an elevating and prayerful experience.\r\n\r\nSorabji, in an elegant contribution, shows how Simplicius solves a problem bequeathed by Aristotle by identifying prime matter with extension, which Aristotle did not do. Cordero challenges the idea of an Eleatic \"school\" while listing Simplicius\u2019 quotations of Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus. Blumenthal discusses Simplicius\u2019 doctrine of the soul, though his uncertainty about the authorship of the De Anima commentary (potentially by Priscian) limits the analysis. Luna traces Iamblichean roots in Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary.\r\n\r\nThe final sections include discussions of the manuscript tradition of Simplicius, with contributions by Ilsetraut Hadot, Leonardo Taran, and Dieter Harlfinger. Taran critiques Diels\u2019 edition of Simplicius' Physics commentary, showing its deficiencies due to reliance on unreliable collations and limited understanding of Neoplatonic doctrine. Harlfinger analyzes contamination in the manuscript tradition of the commentary on Books I-IV.\r\n\r\nThe collection concludes with two papers on Simplicius\u2019 influence in the medieval West, one by Fernand Boissier on Latin translations and the influence of the In De Caelo commentary and another by Pierre Hadot on the survival of the Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te commentary in the 15th to 17th centuries.\r\n\r\nOverall, this collection has given Simplicius much of his due as a major commentator and preserver of earlier Greek philosophy. While only three papers\u2014those by Blumenthal, Luna, and Sorabji\u2014discuss any distinctive doctrines of Simplicius, this is perhaps reasonable given that he does not claim originality. Most of what seems distinctive likely goes back to Iamblichus or Syrianus\/Proclus. Yet, it might one day be possible to produce a focused volume on his doctrinal innovations. [the entire text]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hje0CYeAY915LhU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":708,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of Hellenic Studies","volume":"110","issue":"","pages":"244\u2013245"}},"sort":[1990]}
| Title | Iamblichus’ Νοερὰ Θεωρία of Aristotle’s Categories |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1997 |
| Journal | Syllecta Classica |
| Volume | 8 |
| Pages | 65-77 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Dillon, John |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This text discusses Iamblichus' commentary on Porphyry's large commentary on Aristotle's Categories. Porphyry is credited with the setting out and responses to all the aporiai that were concocted by critics of the Categories in the Middle Platonic period, as well as with references to Stoic doctrines in the commentary. Iamblichus added certain criticisms, modifications of Porphyry, relevant passages of Archytas, and some "higher criticism" or intellectual interpretation of nearly all sections of the work. Iamblichus' contribution was to apply his techniques of allegorical exegesis to Aristotle's Categories, where he was able to apply much the same method as he did with Plato's dialogues. Iamblichus' method of commentary is discussed in detail, including his definition of the skopos, or essential subject matter, of the treatise, which concerned all three possible subject matters for the Categories: words, things, and concepts. [introduction/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Oti0shwXiKiyZ4B |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1147","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1147,"authors_free":[{"id":1722,"entry_id":1147,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Iamblichus\u2019 \u039d\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u0398\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 of Aristotle\u2019s Categories","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus\u2019 \u039d\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u0398\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 of Aristotle\u2019s Categories"},"abstract":"This text discusses Iamblichus' commentary on Porphyry's large commentary on Aristotle's Categories. Porphyry is credited with the setting out and responses to all the aporiai that were concocted by critics of the Categories in the Middle Platonic period, as well as with references to Stoic doctrines in the commentary. Iamblichus added certain criticisms, modifications of Porphyry, relevant passages of Archytas, and some \"higher criticism\" or intellectual interpretation of nearly all sections of the work. Iamblichus' contribution was to apply his techniques of allegorical exegesis to Aristotle's Categories, where he was able to apply much the same method as he did with Plato's dialogues. Iamblichus' method of commentary is discussed in detail, including his definition of the skopos, or essential subject matter, of the treatise, which concerned all three possible subject matters for the Categories: words, things, and concepts. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Oti0shwXiKiyZ4B","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1147,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Syllecta Classica","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"65-77"}},"sort":["Iamblichus\u2019 \u039d\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u0398\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 of Aristotle\u2019s Categories"]}
| Title | Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2009 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 158 –160 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Dillon, John |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This is a most welcome book, by a scholar who has had much to do with Simplicius over the last decade or so, as part of the great Ancient Commentators on Aristotle project, initiated by Richard Sorabji (indeed it is to Sorabji that the book is dedicated). The fruits of this experience are evidenced on more or less every page. As B. remarks, it has not been customary hitherto to focus on the personality or methods of Simplicius himself, as opposed to his value as a source for previous figures, both commentators and original authors, such as the Presocratics—such would have been the attitude of the great Hermann Diels, for example, who edited the Physics Commentary, as well as making so much use of him for his Fragmente der Vorsokratiker and Doxographi Graeci. But undoubtedly, Simplicius merits some attention for himself. The book consists of six chapters, with an introduction and an epilogue. The introduction sets out the parameters of the problem: what should one expect in the way of philosophical attitudes from a late antique Platonist such as Simplicius, and how B. himself proposes to proceed in evaluating him. He emphasises that there are many ways in which this is something of a "work in progress," but he certainly provides enough material to give us a good idea of what Simplicius is up to. Above all, learned though he is, and copiously though he quotes his predecessors, we should not expect Simplicius to be in any anachronistic way an "objective" scholar. He is a Platonist, and his purpose is to assimilate Aristotle (and indeed the Presocratic philosophers) into the Platonist system. Ch. 1, ‘The Scholar and his Books’, introduces us to what is known of Simplicius’ life and education (with Ammonius in Alexandria and Damascius in Athens, in the early decades of the sixth century) and addresses the major problem of the location and circumstances in which he composed his vast commentaries—necessarily after the official closing of the Academy in 529, and the return of the philosophers, of whom he was one, from Persia in 531. The Harran hypothesis of Tardieu runs into the great problem of the availability of source materials in such a relatively outlying place, and B. is inclined to reject it. The alternative is a return to Athens, or possibly Alexandria, where at least there were good libraries. For one salient aspect of Simplicius’ work is his extraordinary range of reading, and his willingness to provide us with verbatim quotations from this, extending from Presocratics such as Parmenides, Melissus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, through immediate followers of Aristotle, such as Theophrastus and Eudemus, and then the great second-century A.D. Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias, down to his Neoplatonic predecessors Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus, and his own teacher Damascius. B. devotes separate chapters to each of these categories of predecessor. Ch. 2, ‘Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy? Origins of Ancient Wisdom’, looks at his use of Parmenides, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras in particular, and makes various suggestions about his overall purposes in this. It is certainly notable that Simplicius favours verbatim quotation even of prose authors—in contrast, for example, to such a figure as Proclus, who prefers to paraphrase prose authors at least—but I think that I would rest content with Simplicius’ own explanation (and apologies for over-quotation!), that he was concerned to preserve as much as he could of sources that were becoming increasingly rare in his day. It does not mean that he is not prepared to distort their meaning in a Neoplatonic direction. Ch. 3, ‘Towards a Canon: The Early Peripatetics’, turns to a study of Theophrastus and Eudemus, and in particular their comments on, and adaptations of, Aristotle’s Physics. It is here, I fear, that one begins to realise that this is the sort of book that is best appreciated if one has the original works it is discussing at one’s elbow, as one generally does not—in this case, chiefly Simplicius’ vast Commentary on the Physics. However, B. undoubtedly gives a good account of how Simplicius uses Theophrastus, and particularly Eudemus, whom he actually refers to far more (132 references as against 37!), for the clarification of Aristotle’s doctrine. Ch. 4, ‘Ghost in the Machine? The Role of Alexander of Aphrodisias’, deals with Alexander, who is indeed Simplicius’ chief authority—quoted or mentioned in all fully 1200 times, of which around 700 are in the Physics Commentary. Alexander is, for Simplicius, simply "the commentator," and is of basic importance to him. After giving a useful account of Alexander's own exegetical achievements, B. tries to draw up something of a typology of ways in which he is used by Simplicius (4.3): first, he can be used as simply a helpful source for understanding Aristotle; secondly, he can be quoted and criticised, on a matter of interpretation or doctrine; thirdly, he can be quoted in connection with a variant in the manuscript tradition. Of all these, he gives examples, emphasising how central Alexander is to the whole commentary tradition. Ch. 5, ‘Platonist Commentators: Sources and Inspiration’, takes us through the later Platonist tradition of commentary, with a glance at the Middle Platonists, but focusing chiefly on Porphyry and Iamblichus, and the establishing of the "harmonising" interpretation of Aristotle of which Simplicius is the heir. The use of these Platonist predecessors is particularly notable in the case of the Categories Commentary, but it affects the others as well. Lastly, in Ch. 6, ‘Polemic and Exegesis in Simplicius: Defending Pagan Theology’, he deals with Simplicius’ fierce controversy with his Christian contemporary John Philoponus, as well as with his more civil criticisms of Alexander. The bitterness of his assaults on Philoponus does, as B. argues, bring home to us how far Simplicius is a heroic and tragic figure, trying to preserve and synthesise the whole of the Hellenic (I do wish we could give up the term "pagan"!) philosophical tradition in face of the ever more insistent Christian challenge, and composing his vast commentaries for a now largely imaginary coterie of students. An Epilogue resumes all these findings, and B. appends some useful appendices, including one listing the probable contents of Simplicius’ library, which certainly brings it home to us that these great works of his could not have been composed while wandering about the Syrian desert on the back of a camel. He really must have been back in Athens, with some access to the library of the Platonic School. At any rate, with this study, B. at last gives Simplicius something of his due as a scholar as well as a commentator. [the entire review p. 158-160] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/p1cPjdejj6J9LSt |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"601","_score":null,"_source":{"id":601,"authors_free":[{"id":852,"entry_id":601,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"This is a most welcome book, by a scholar who has had much to do with Simplicius over the last decade or so, as part of the great Ancient Commentators on Aristotle project, initiated by Richard Sorabji (indeed it is to Sorabji that the book is dedicated). The fruits of this experience are evidenced on more or less every page. As B. remarks, it has not been customary hitherto to focus on the personality or methods of Simplicius himself, as opposed to his value as a source for previous figures, both commentators and original authors, such as the Presocratics\u2014such would have been the attitude of the great Hermann Diels, for example, who edited the Physics Commentary, as well as making so much use of him for his Fragmente der Vorsokratiker and Doxographi Graeci. But undoubtedly, Simplicius merits some attention for himself.\r\n\r\nThe book consists of six chapters, with an introduction and an epilogue. The introduction sets out the parameters of the problem: what should one expect in the way of philosophical attitudes from a late antique Platonist such as Simplicius, and how B. himself proposes to proceed in evaluating him. He emphasises that there are many ways in which this is something of a \"work in progress,\" but he certainly provides enough material to give us a good idea of what Simplicius is up to. Above all, learned though he is, and copiously though he quotes his predecessors, we should not expect Simplicius to be in any anachronistic way an \"objective\" scholar. He is a Platonist, and his purpose is to assimilate Aristotle (and indeed the Presocratic philosophers) into the Platonist system.\r\n\r\nCh. 1, \u2018The Scholar and his Books\u2019, introduces us to what is known of Simplicius\u2019 life and education (with Ammonius in Alexandria and Damascius in Athens, in the early decades of the sixth century) and addresses the major problem of the location and circumstances in which he composed his vast commentaries\u2014necessarily after the official closing of the Academy in 529, and the return of the philosophers, of whom he was one, from Persia in 531. The Harran hypothesis of Tardieu runs into the great problem of the availability of source materials in such a relatively outlying place, and B. is inclined to reject it. The alternative is a return to Athens, or possibly Alexandria, where at least there were good libraries.\r\n\r\nFor one salient aspect of Simplicius\u2019 work is his extraordinary range of reading, and his willingness to provide us with verbatim quotations from this, extending from Presocratics such as Parmenides, Melissus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, through immediate followers of Aristotle, such as Theophrastus and Eudemus, and then the great second-century A.D. Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias, down to his Neoplatonic predecessors Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus, and his own teacher Damascius. B. devotes separate chapters to each of these categories of predecessor.\r\n\r\nCh. 2, \u2018Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy? Origins of Ancient Wisdom\u2019, looks at his use of Parmenides, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras in particular, and makes various suggestions about his overall purposes in this. It is certainly notable that Simplicius favours verbatim quotation even of prose authors\u2014in contrast, for example, to such a figure as Proclus, who prefers to paraphrase prose authors at least\u2014but I think that I would rest content with Simplicius\u2019 own explanation (and apologies for over-quotation!), that he was concerned to preserve as much as he could of sources that were becoming increasingly rare in his day. It does not mean that he is not prepared to distort their meaning in a Neoplatonic direction.\r\n\r\nCh. 3, \u2018Towards a Canon: The Early Peripatetics\u2019, turns to a study of Theophrastus and Eudemus, and in particular their comments on, and adaptations of, Aristotle\u2019s Physics. It is here, I fear, that one begins to realise that this is the sort of book that is best appreciated if one has the original works it is discussing at one\u2019s elbow, as one generally does not\u2014in this case, chiefly Simplicius\u2019 vast Commentary on the Physics. However, B. undoubtedly gives a good account of how Simplicius uses Theophrastus, and particularly Eudemus, whom he actually refers to far more (132 references as against 37!), for the clarification of Aristotle\u2019s doctrine.\r\n\r\nCh. 4, \u2018Ghost in the Machine? The Role of Alexander of Aphrodisias\u2019, deals with Alexander, who is indeed Simplicius\u2019 chief authority\u2014quoted or mentioned in all fully 1200 times, of which around 700 are in the Physics Commentary. Alexander is, for Simplicius, simply \"the commentator,\" and is of basic importance to him. After giving a useful account of Alexander's own exegetical achievements, B. tries to draw up something of a typology of ways in which he is used by Simplicius (4.3): first, he can be used as simply a helpful source for understanding Aristotle; secondly, he can be quoted and criticised, on a matter of interpretation or doctrine; thirdly, he can be quoted in connection with a variant in the manuscript tradition. Of all these, he gives examples, emphasising how central Alexander is to the whole commentary tradition.\r\n\r\nCh. 5, \u2018Platonist Commentators: Sources and Inspiration\u2019, takes us through the later Platonist tradition of commentary, with a glance at the Middle Platonists, but focusing chiefly on Porphyry and Iamblichus, and the establishing of the \"harmonising\" interpretation of Aristotle of which Simplicius is the heir. The use of these Platonist predecessors is particularly notable in the case of the Categories Commentary, but it affects the others as well.\r\n\r\nLastly, in Ch. 6, \u2018Polemic and Exegesis in Simplicius: Defending Pagan Theology\u2019, he deals with Simplicius\u2019 fierce controversy with his Christian contemporary John Philoponus, as well as with his more civil criticisms of Alexander. The bitterness of his assaults on Philoponus does, as B. argues, bring home to us how far Simplicius is a heroic and tragic figure, trying to preserve and synthesise the whole of the Hellenic (I do wish we could give up the term \"pagan\"!) philosophical tradition in face of the ever more insistent Christian challenge, and composing his vast commentaries for a now largely imaginary coterie of students.\r\n\r\nAn Epilogue resumes all these findings, and B. appends some useful appendices, including one listing the probable contents of Simplicius\u2019 library, which certainly brings it home to us that these great works of his could not have been composed while wandering about the Syrian desert on the back of a camel. He really must have been back in Athens, with some access to the library of the Platonic School.\r\n\r\nAt any rate, with this study, B. at last gives Simplicius something of his due as a scholar as well as a commentator. [the entire review p. 158-160]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/p1cPjdejj6J9LSt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":601,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"3","issue":"2","pages":"158 \u2013160"}},"sort":["Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"]}
| Title | Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1990 |
| Journal | Journal of Hellenic Studies |
| Volume | 110 |
| Pages | 244–245 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Dillon, John |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Simplicius is a man who might seem destined forever to be used simply as a source for other thinkers, without being given much credit for thinking himself. After all, his surviving works are overtly commentaries on one work or another (overwhelmingly of Aristotle)—though, in fact, small bits of more original work are embedded in these, such as the Corollaries on Space and Time in the Physics commentary. He is also a man of exemplary modesty about his own contributions, always making clear his debts to previous authorities, quoting his sources to an extent unusual in Neoplatonist circles (or indeed in the ancient world in general).
It was therefore a happy idea of Mme. Hadot to call together a conference of distinguished Neoplatonists to honor Simplicius and to produce this impressive volume as a result. The work is divided into four (unequal) parts:
A biographical introduction
A series of essays on doctrinal and methodological questions
A shorter section on textual problems
A pair of essays on Simplicius' Nachleben
All are of interest and importance.
First, we have an essay by Ilsetraut Hadot herself (depending in one important respect on the essay of Michel Tardieu, which follows it) on the chronology of Simplicius' life and works. Tardieu, by a fine piece of detective work (Simplicius et les calendriers de Harran), argues with at least great probability that when Simplicius returned with the other philosophers from Persia in 532, it was not to Athens or any other major center but rather to the town of Harran (Carrhae) in Osrhoene. There, a tradition of non-conformist Christianity was tolerant of philosophy, and it is likely where he composed most, if not all, of his commentaries. Certain remarks Simplicius makes in In Phys. 874.23 ff., about the four different calendars "we" use, seem to require his presence at the only known place where four calendars were simultaneously in use, as we know from later Arab sources.
The central part of the collection comprises six essays on aspects of doctrine:
Two by Philippe Hoffmann (Categories et langage selon Simplicius: on the purpose (skopos) of Aristotle's Categories and an analysis of Simplicius’ invective against John Philoponus)
One by Henry Blumenthal on the doctrine of the De Anima commentary of Simplicius (if it is indeed by Simplicius)
One by Concetta Luna on Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary
One by Richard Sorabji on Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension
One by Nestor-Luis Cordero on Simplicius et l'école éléate
Hoffmann's studies frame this central portion of the work. His first examines Simplicius' account of the skopos of Aristotle's Categories, showing how Simplicius, following Porphyry, views the Categories as addressing "utterances" (phonai), "things" (pragmata, onta), "concepts" (noemata), or all of these. Simplicius interprets the study of language, particularly its primary constituents, as a preparation for the soul’s ascent to the noetic world—a higher interpretation inherited from Iamblichus. In his second study, Hoffmann examines Simplicius' strategies of polemic and invective against Philoponus, particularly in the De Caelo, and Simplicius' view of the higher purpose of studying celestial matters. For Simplicius, even prosaic texts like the Categories could become an elevating and prayerful experience.
Sorabji, in an elegant contribution, shows how Simplicius solves a problem bequeathed by Aristotle by identifying prime matter with extension, which Aristotle did not do. Cordero challenges the idea of an Eleatic "school" while listing Simplicius’ quotations of Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus. Blumenthal discusses Simplicius’ doctrine of the soul, though his uncertainty about the authorship of the De Anima commentary (potentially by Priscian) limits the analysis. Luna traces Iamblichean roots in Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary.
The final sections include discussions of the manuscript tradition of Simplicius, with contributions by Ilsetraut Hadot, Leonardo Taran, and Dieter Harlfinger. Taran critiques Diels’ edition of Simplicius' Physics commentary, showing its deficiencies due to reliance on unreliable collations and limited understanding of Neoplatonic doctrine. Harlfinger analyzes contamination in the manuscript tradition of the commentary on Books I-IV.
The collection concludes with two papers on Simplicius’ influence in the medieval West, one by Fernand Boissier on Latin translations and the influence of the In De Caelo commentary and another by Pierre Hadot on the survival of the Manuel d'Épictète commentary in the 15th to 17th centuries.
Overall, this collection has given Simplicius much of his due as a major commentator and preserver of earlier Greek philosophy. While only three papers—those by Blumenthal, Luna, and Sorabji—discuss any distinctive doctrines of Simplicius, this is perhaps reasonable given that he does not claim originality. Most of what seems distinctive likely goes back to Iamblichus or Syrianus/Proclus. Yet, it might one day be possible to produce a focused volume on his doctrinal innovations. [the entire text] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hje0CYeAY915LhU |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"708","_score":null,"_source":{"id":708,"authors_free":[{"id":1056,"entry_id":708,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie","main_title":{"title":"Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie"},"abstract":"Simplicius is a man who might seem destined forever to be used simply as a source for other thinkers, without being given much credit for thinking himself. After all, his surviving works are overtly commentaries on one work or another (overwhelmingly of Aristotle)\u2014though, in fact, small bits of more original work are embedded in these, such as the Corollaries on Space and Time in the Physics commentary. He is also a man of exemplary modesty about his own contributions, always making clear his debts to previous authorities, quoting his sources to an extent unusual in Neoplatonist circles (or indeed in the ancient world in general).\r\n\r\nIt was therefore a happy idea of Mme. Hadot to call together a conference of distinguished Neoplatonists to honor Simplicius and to produce this impressive volume as a result. The work is divided into four (unequal) parts:\r\n\r\n A biographical introduction\r\n A series of essays on doctrinal and methodological questions\r\n A shorter section on textual problems\r\n A pair of essays on Simplicius' Nachleben\r\n\r\nAll are of interest and importance.\r\n\r\nFirst, we have an essay by Ilsetraut Hadot herself (depending in one important respect on the essay of Michel Tardieu, which follows it) on the chronology of Simplicius' life and works. Tardieu, by a fine piece of detective work (Simplicius et les calendriers de Harran), argues with at least great probability that when Simplicius returned with the other philosophers from Persia in 532, it was not to Athens or any other major center but rather to the town of Harran (Carrhae) in Osrhoene. There, a tradition of non-conformist Christianity was tolerant of philosophy, and it is likely where he composed most, if not all, of his commentaries. Certain remarks Simplicius makes in In Phys. 874.23 ff., about the four different calendars \"we\" use, seem to require his presence at the only known place where four calendars were simultaneously in use, as we know from later Arab sources.\r\n\r\nThe central part of the collection comprises six essays on aspects of doctrine:\r\n\r\n Two by Philippe Hoffmann (Categories et langage selon Simplicius: on the purpose (skopos) of Aristotle's Categories and an analysis of Simplicius\u2019 invective against John Philoponus)\r\n One by Henry Blumenthal on the doctrine of the De Anima commentary of Simplicius (if it is indeed by Simplicius)\r\n One by Concetta Luna on Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary\r\n One by Richard Sorabji on Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension\r\n One by Nestor-Luis Cordero on Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole \u00e9l\u00e9ate\r\n\r\nHoffmann's studies frame this central portion of the work. His first examines Simplicius' account of the skopos of Aristotle's Categories, showing how Simplicius, following Porphyry, views the Categories as addressing \"utterances\" (phonai), \"things\" (pragmata, onta), \"concepts\" (noemata), or all of these. Simplicius interprets the study of language, particularly its primary constituents, as a preparation for the soul\u2019s ascent to the noetic world\u2014a higher interpretation inherited from Iamblichus. In his second study, Hoffmann examines Simplicius' strategies of polemic and invective against Philoponus, particularly in the De Caelo, and Simplicius' view of the higher purpose of studying celestial matters. For Simplicius, even prosaic texts like the Categories could become an elevating and prayerful experience.\r\n\r\nSorabji, in an elegant contribution, shows how Simplicius solves a problem bequeathed by Aristotle by identifying prime matter with extension, which Aristotle did not do. Cordero challenges the idea of an Eleatic \"school\" while listing Simplicius\u2019 quotations of Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus. Blumenthal discusses Simplicius\u2019 doctrine of the soul, though his uncertainty about the authorship of the De Anima commentary (potentially by Priscian) limits the analysis. Luna traces Iamblichean roots in Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary.\r\n\r\nThe final sections include discussions of the manuscript tradition of Simplicius, with contributions by Ilsetraut Hadot, Leonardo Taran, and Dieter Harlfinger. Taran critiques Diels\u2019 edition of Simplicius' Physics commentary, showing its deficiencies due to reliance on unreliable collations and limited understanding of Neoplatonic doctrine. Harlfinger analyzes contamination in the manuscript tradition of the commentary on Books I-IV.\r\n\r\nThe collection concludes with two papers on Simplicius\u2019 influence in the medieval West, one by Fernand Boissier on Latin translations and the influence of the In De Caelo commentary and another by Pierre Hadot on the survival of the Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te commentary in the 15th to 17th centuries.\r\n\r\nOverall, this collection has given Simplicius much of his due as a major commentator and preserver of earlier Greek philosophy. While only three papers\u2014those by Blumenthal, Luna, and Sorabji\u2014discuss any distinctive doctrines of Simplicius, this is perhaps reasonable given that he does not claim originality. Most of what seems distinctive likely goes back to Iamblichus or Syrianus\/Proclus. Yet, it might one day be possible to produce a focused volume on his doctrinal innovations. [the entire text]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hje0CYeAY915LhU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":708,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of Hellenic Studies","volume":"110","issue":"","pages":"244\u2013245"}},"sort":["Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie"]}